Republicans don't have to worry about lying under oath...

Post Reply New Topic

putting anyone labeled as a terrorist wherever we want...including third world countries where laws on torture don't apply...that's pretty against the constitution and pretty bad.

in general, i'd say torture is pretty bad...not to mention wholly ineffective. if you torture someone enough, they'll confess to everything you want them to.

Bush didn't coerce anybody to pass his budgets. Don't you know how to pass a bill?





This is your subjective opinion, not an objective fact. George Bush did not have to spend months getting months at the United Nations getting one, and then attempting to get a second U.N. resolution. As Iraq was already explicitly in violation of the ceasefire agreement that ended the Persian Gulf War of 1991, he could have gone to war without a U.N. resolution (of course, the U.N. Charter grants wide latitude for warfare, including preemptive warfare).



Again, this is entirely subjective. In retrospect, based on the aftermath it is easy to say that planning was poor. There were elements within the Pentagon that argued for a larger invasion force. However there were reasons to question this at the time. First, there was a element of thinking that large bulky armies were on the way out the window. The recent Afghan* campaign (a admittedly different environment) had shown the wisdom of a lighter force. In addition, the U.S. military of today is a much smaller force then 1991 or especially the 1980s. Placing three-quarters of a million American troops has the potential disadvantage of sudden disaster if those troops are needed are needed to defend against a Chinese invasion of Taiwan or a North Korean invasion of the South.

It is worth noting that the initial invasion of Iraq was more then effective. In fact, there was almost no battle at all against the Iraq army. Unlike the Persian Gulf conflict, the Iraqi army meltled away, unwilling to confront a head-on assault against the much superior firepower of the United States (for more see John Keegan's The Iraq War. Some of these cast-offs later joined the Baathist insurgency, while others (just drafted into the army) have joined the new Iraqi army, or police. After bungled early coalition efforts essentially threw out entirely the entire officer court, regardless of actual complicity with criminal actions, recently the Iraqi army has seen increased effectiveness and new recruits along with some old members have enlisted.



We are in the critical days of the Iraq war right now. Past succusses, and failures are behind us. Certainly President Bush, his advisers, and the military will be judged on them. However, they finally seem to have retooled and found the right strategy. Success or failure will not only be determined on the ground but by actions in Washington.



Colin Powell was the Secretary of State. He wasn't a baby. He's a war-hero, and at the time he gave the speech was polled as one of the most popular men in teh country If he felt that he was being fed some "lie" then he could have resigned. Instead he gave the speech at he U.N.



Intelligence information is never absolutely complete. There are always competing views. You work with what you have to the best you can. If Saddam didn't have weapons that would mean the Central Intelligence Agency, MI5, and the rest of the agencies got it wrong. It wouldn't be the first time either. The CIA hugely overestimated the economic performance of the Soviet Union. It's collapse caught them off guard (Reagan's brilliance is further emphasized by the fact that he didn't believe the CIA's reports). Why were the CIA's reports inaccurate? They read the Soviet's own internal documents and the Soviets lied to themselves. In a society where you can get killed or punished for giving the wrong answer you often lie rather then tell the truth.

Guess what? The CIA didn't predict the insurgency in Iraq after the war. Not at all. They said that different religious and ethnic groups would never work together. They were wrong.



No internal investigation has been able to back this charge up. How much do you bet the Democrats would love to be able really prove that Bush willingly lied to the country? Do you think they want him be President? Do you realize how much proving he lied would damage the Republican party, even more then it already has been damaged? Current polls, regardless of the Dems confidence, hardly show a landslide victory for the Democrats in the '08 presidential election. Something like that could change all that. It would partially insulate the Democrats that voted for the war. They could excuse themselves by claiming they didn't know any better.



Since you haven't shown Bush actually willingly lied about anything, or willingly misled anybody this analogy doesn't mean anything.



I seen to becoming almost the in-house contrarian, but I can't argue that No Left Child Behind was horribly flawed. Of course wouldn't be first person on the right to say that.



It should be noted that school funding (on the federal level) has been jacked up considerably under the Bush administration (far more then under the Clinton administration).



I think the mistake will NCLB is the emphesis on testing in that it directly effects funding. I understand why testing must be done, but the way that it's done the teachers start to damage their whole platform so to emphasis merely to areas effected by testing.

In regards to cutting funds for poor performing schools. One problem with certain schools is the myth that more money=better performance*. This is false. What appears to be the case is that when lots of money is dumped into schools it often doesn't improve the quality of the teaching, and much of the money is spend on things like staff (not coincidently, this is often most true in the poorest performing schools). I believe one of the largest problems today with the public schools is the influence of the teacher's unions, who if you corner them, actually will admit to you are concerned almost exclusively about teachers (salaries, and enlisting more members, with a secondary concern of left-wing politics).

Of course, in the absolutest sense, I suppose you are correct. If you cut below a certain level then students will no longer have access to the most current books, and schools will shut down. That is, and would be unfortunate (although in the former case the exact age of books or the presence of computers is less important then competent instruction).

*(1)A good case can be made I think that inner city public schools, with the level or violence and the restrictions on punishment, an aggravated salary is probably necessary. This, if anything, is a good argument for a voucher system.

*(2)I thought President Bush made some excellent proposals for correcting the problems in NCLB in his most recent State of the Union, but I doubt that Democratic-controlled legislature will act on them. If this is the case, it would have been better if he never had passed it in the first place.



To be honest, I haven't seen any studies that show things are academically much worse now then they were before. They seem to be basically the same. The primary issue seems to before mentioned issue of teacher's their classes to meet the tests. I will look for some studies though.



Generally it is not a good idea to apply a local reference to a national program. This is especially true with something like education with the effects of local unions, politicians, ect...Are you in the education field? Perhaps you can provide some examples because I actually would be interested?



Now this is unfair. You could make the same rhetorical charge at me. Let me try it: Democrats in congress who oppose vouchers treat education as privilege because after all, they would let there own kids attend a private school, but not some poor minority inner-city kid.



Well, I agree with you that the lack of vetoes is an issue. Although increasing taxes would be an issue at this point (although I'm not some anti-tax hysteric that opposes every tax all the time). The deficit has gone down, which is good, and at the rate beyond that expected by projections.



Terrible, terrible in the first term. Essentially, from what I remember the spending level (even limiting it to domestic) was the highest going back to LBJ (adjusting for inflation, I assume). Now if you go back to FDR, Wilson, ect, the numbers probably start to get kinda crazy I assume so they are harder to compare.

Oh, this is unrelated, but I hate it when people say that President Clinton signed "the largest tax increase in American history." Why? It doesn't mean anything. It's only in absolute term. It's like saying George W. Bush won "the most votes in the history of American presidential elections?" So what? Who signed the second biggest? Ronald Reagan. (laugh) Of course in percentage terms it is somebody else in both cases.



It should be based on efficiency not religious affiliation. If there are discriminating then that would be unconstitutional. I'm not sure about "unrecorded," maybe you are right. Do the people who dole at the funds have records?



The deficit, as mentioned before, has gone down, during his administration, and unlike the Reagan or Bush I administrations shows no signs of being out of control (at least right now). Increasinging taxes will have the effect in the short run of stalling the economy and will reduce receipts. It will not lower the deficit in the long run.



I can't disagree with you there. The only way this could work is as a strategy of the privatization of social security and Medicare. The President has indicated understands the danger of looming deficits from this, however even if the prescription drug bill was part of this strategy he badly underestimated the domestic political opposition on Capital Hill. If this issue is not dealt with the U.S. will risk having economic catastrophe.



You are right. Those things don't matter.



Agreed.



There are less coarse ways of describing it. Is this an attempt to mockery?



Well, it is more complicated then that. In that matter of whether or not he had sex, or engaged in sexual behave (ect...) I would have voted not guilty. However, he met with Lewinsky and lied about it (in a civil suit), told his attorney the lie (and had the attorney tell lie), and encouraged others to lie. There is no doubt to that. I would have preferred that the civil suit had not occurred in the first place, but unfortunately it did.

Now as for whether he should have been impeached. Had Bill Cinton, after doing the things listed in the indictment, before the bill of indictment been approved by the House Judiciary Committee admitted his wrongs before the American people like he (sort of) did after he was acquitted by the Senate I would have opposed his impeachment*. This is because, as I said, I do not believe that just because a President has committed a wrong does not mean he must be. It seems clear that that was never the intention of the founders, although I the idea that this is not a case that the founders would consider impeachable seems absurd to me. However, once the articles had been approved the horse had left the proverbial barn, and the members of the House and Senate had a job to do. I would have thus voted yes, not to all of the articles but to some of them just I would have voted for the impeachment and removal of President Nixon despite opposing the approval of the articles (for reasons having to do with him being wars both Cold and Hot).



This is true in both the Paula Jones case and the impeachment case. However the fact that the President decided to allow his judgment to be effected by such cases is a mark against him. The fact that President Clinton would try with such desperation to cover his political hide over something like an affair raises the question (especially in light of other scandals late in the administration which were never fully investigated) of what he would do to cover up more serious embarrassments to his administration.



I assume you harbor the same rage towards Richard Armitage, the Iraq war critic who was the first to leak Ms. Plame Wilson's name. It is important to note that leak was not illegal (this would not be surprising to the press or the left, which has celebrated the leaking of actual covert CIA agent's names o decades, included those who actually have led to their executions by hostile regimes, see the infamous Richard Amis).



She was not a covert agent! She had a desk job at the CIA. She was not "covert" according to the law. Her name was revealed because her husbund wrote a (false) article accusing the Bush administration of lying about a British intelligence report of Saddam Hussein attempting to obtain uranium from Niger (Plame recommended sending her husband to Niger, perhaps her husband shouldn't have written a incorrect column in the New York Times?

It's actually very interesting that someone like Wilson would write a column like he did. It put the Bush administration in an almost impossible position. The column was a lie, but his wife was a CIA employee. She recommended her husband go to Niger, but if the anti-Bush press was told this they would start a scandal the administration instead. Of course, Washington being Washington (apparently, the Wilsons were well known) it got out, and not through the administration but through the critic depeutry of State Richard Armitage (the state department is far from close to the President). Armitage tells Robert Woodward and then Robert Novak (this isn't a crime or anything). Now the administration is getting attacked for "leaking" a CIA agent even though it didn't. Libby didn't tell anything anybody else didn't know, but it's a "Bush leak?" Give me a break. He was convicted of perjury; of covering his own behind. Fitzgerald has closed the investigation. No Karl Rove in a stick here. Sorry.



The Constitution applies to American citizens on American soil. Americans caught fighting for the terrorists in Afghanistan do not get constitutional rights (nor did they in the past), although obviously you did not mention this. I will let you look up your facts.

Much of the patriot has to do with things like the ability to listen to calls into the United States from suspected terrorists, financial surveillance ect...Some of it has actually been repealed. The Patriot Act doesn't authorize torture in any way. More in a second on this...

okay....so the republicans in congress in general are responsible for the billions that have been wasted. reps had the majority till 2006....and if i'm not mistaken they took over in the 90s...right? i think it was actually 1996....maybe 94?


so the spending problem purely lays on the liberal republican side.

We agree to an extent. To use torture as a method of extracting confessing (as in the former Soviet Union) is, if not entirely useless, then faulty. The interrogator generally has a way of finding out what he wants to find out. This leads to a corrupting of the entire already dirty, awful system. A system that is based on paranoia anyway. On the other hand, it has been established now that through the practice of water boarding on terrorists (or whatever one wishes to call them) information was extracted (rather rapidly, actually) that prevented terrorist attacks. On the whole, this is more then enough for me to endorse this latter activity. For the former strikes me as both meaningless and unnecessary act of cruelty.

Oh, no, skafather84, I am no party hack. Republicans in general are responsible (along with the Democrats) are responsible for those spending increases. It is much easier to take on such a passive, non combative role when one is in the majority with a President of your own party. This is not to say that Bush is entirely responsible, because he would berate them on occasion. Everybody has their own pet project and no one was brave enough to object. Corruption fed corruption. Majority party became minority party. I wouldn't be surprised if the GOP starts reverting back into their traditional role.

i hope so....it's why i registered republican and plan on supporting ron paul....i want more of a return to the minimalist approach with regards to government and spending.

In other words like the scene in the emperor's new school where Kuzco and Kronk are 'interrogating' some random student. Student confesses to being Melina's 'secret admirer' Melina comes out of a stall (the interrogation took place in the girls' bathroom). K and K explain the situation to M. M: Uhuh (to Ks) She then turns to the random student and asks if he's forty feet tall and made of cotton candy which RS admits to. M then explains that the student is question is scared and will confess to anything.

Rarely can we check with you before we put together how we look, sorry, it must have slipped our minds to check with you about our apperance before we walked out in public today.

Merle